Most Helpful Guy

Most Helpful Girl

Anonymous

2mo

Of course I do.We are talking about two people of legal age in love who want to make the next step. Why would I be opposed to that? Who am I to dictate what other people should or shouldn't do?Being against it is completely unreasonable. Why would anyone care about something that doesn't affect their own life in any way?

What Guys Said 24

People who don't support it are just really insecure and often get into people's business for no reason. It effects nobody that they like the same sex and it makes people happy that they are more socially accepted these days.

Give it a different name and I'll support it.Marriage is the union of one man and one woman.Same-sex unions are unique and deserve their own definition.Calling it same-sex marriage is deceptive since the two unions are different, all it does is create an environment of intolerance to those who hold traditional views.

Those who hold traditional views should adapt, not the other way around. Marriage is marriage. It is a legal binding document recognizing the union of two people, regardless of gender. That's it. No religious or traditional values behind it.

@PoorCollegeStudent A legally binding document can be called by any name.Just because you oppose traditional values doesn't mean you should have the right to enforce your views on others especially when their views are not harming anyone.Same-sex couples already had the ability to enter into contracts and in some states civil unions, calling it marriage was done for purely political reasons.

No you're wrong. You are enforcing your traditional interpretation of the word marriage and stating that because you believe it to be purely between male and female that it shouldn't be the same word for homosexuals. However, the Supreme Court itself deemed section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, which then allowed homosexuals to be married and get the benefits DOMA offers. To do what you are saying would require an entire new bill, or a modification to DOMA, to be passed just so marriage, which is once again just a union between two people regardless of gender, to be made only for male and female. I don't oppose traditional values, but I do oppose them when they are filled with bigotry, and saying it should be a different name falls under that category. The traditional use of fag is for cigarettes, yet we use it as an offensive slur. People sure didn't care when that changed so why do they care about this? Because it goes against their beliefs which they believe should be prioritized.

Not to mention the fact you'd be singling them out by having them have a different title for their union when the whole point of the LGBTQ movement is equality. Many people who oppose gay marriage believe that it was the bible that said marriage is between a man and a woman and that "god created it" when it's existed for thousands of years before Christianity even existed so these "traditional views" are outdated and simply incorrect, and shouldn't be catered to.

@PoorCollegeStudent Not once did I make a bigoted statement or even claim to be religious.I'm an atheist.Being a bully and demanding that a group that has never even considered a legal union until recently integrate denies the fact that their union is inherently different and artificial.Marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of the creation of a family. Religious rituals and political/economic unions were later added on to marriage but at its very core the act of marriage never changed.

I do not believe the government should have any role in something as personal as a marriage.If it must be involved then sure give gays legal recognition.Different things require different names especially if their function is different.

As Joe Rogan once put it when talking about vegans adding the prefix vegan to their version of chicken and ice cream, "you need to make a new noise with your face that means that shit".

You are way off. First, quoting Joe Rogan hurts your argument. This is about equality, not a stupid movement for people who want everyone to stop eating animal bi-products. The whole point is that their union isn't different. That was the whole point man. Making their union be called something else isn't equality. It's segregation and bigotry. It doesn't make their marriage any less. Once again you're wrong on marriage. Marriage is a union of two people and is defined by the legal body of government. It has nothing to do with having the ability to reproduce and it never has. With that logic a man and a woman who couldn't have kids for medical reasons should have a different name for marriage. That's what your missing. They define it, their interpretation is final. Not yours, not those of the traditional people. The government gives benefits to married couples so of course they need to be involved my god. They aren't being a bully. They're asking for equality. Since when is asking

for something you deserve bullying? As well, they have been wanting marriage for decades and you could argue centuries. It just wasn't socially acceptable so they could never voice their will, because why? Because they'd be negatively persecuted due to people's traditional views! Shocker. Should we have been tolerant to their traditional views too and cater to them? Of course not. It doesn't affect them. They need to adapt and get used to it.

@PoorCollegeStudent I completely disagree with the premise of your argument that marriage is defined by the individuals engaged in it. The minority of individuals that get married and do not have children for whatever reason don't suddenly change the definition of the term. Marriage has always been about the creation of a family. The religious/economic/political/other reasons that people use to justify getting married don't change the fact that a family is created.Although I'm sure you would be delighted when scientists figure out how to turn male skin cells into eggs for them to be fertilized by another male this wouldn't change the fact that a child needs a mom and a dad.The best families are those in which a mom and a dad are present and care for their child. In this environment the child is able to gain from the different forms of love offered by opposite-sex parents.

You're using a biological pretense for something that does not have any biological meaning associated with it as it is artificial. You can have a family, without being married. You can be married, without having family. A family is defined as, "a group consisting of parents and children living together in a household." So according to what you said, marriage should exclude people who cannot have children, which would fall not only upon homosexuals but also upon those who cannot bear children. That makes no sense. Marriage doesn't exist in the wild, it is something we as humans made up. We created it, we own it. It is to legally recognize the union of two people. Simple as that. Many times throughout history it was to solidify alliances. Not love, not family, but political gain. Also, fuck off with the arbitrary nonsense of "The best families are those in which a mom and a dad are present and care for their child." There is no evidence to support that, and that shows your ignorance.

@PoorCollegeStudent and raise children in some cases better than straight couples there's no denying that but what is lost in calling their union a marriage is a sense of their identity.There's a vibrant gay culture out there, adopting heterosexual marriage diminishes its uniqueness.

You wouldn't tell an Asian man to change his name to Steve just so he would integrate. You'd accept the fact that he is different. That his culture is different and that he has different customs.

This isn't about culture man. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they grew up with a different culture my god that's just stupid. A gay man from Iowa has the same culture as a straight man from Iowa, and just because they're gay or straight doesn't make them any different besides the fact they like different sexes. That's like saying black people should have a different name for marriage because their culture is different. Man your argument is becoming more and more senseless. You want to create segregation to appease the ol' traditional valued folk, when that'll cause long term tension. On the other hand, if we just call it what it is, marriage, it will create a little tension to start off, but then those people intolerant to the idea will die, and their children will grow up with a broader range of knowledge and modernity and they'll accept it for what it is. That's how everything has worked. Slavery, women voting.. you name it. The old die and people get over it.

@PoorCollegeStudent I am against government involvement in marriage therefore my definition of the term is different.Your whole stance rests on anti-religious bigotry and forced integration.It is extremely hateful and what puzzles me most is that you believe that you are the good guy.I support giving gay couples legal protection if the government must be involved but why push for the redefining of marriage?All it does is open up a pandora's box of more bullying by the LGBT community.It especially becomes dangerous when they wield the law to attack business owners who are not comfortable with selling gay wedding cakes, unless they're of course Muslim stores they're the exception.

It is more bullying on the LGBTQ community if you segregate them man. "We're married." "No you're not married, it's not the same and not as good as being married because God doesn't approve of it you're just together." And first off, I'm not anti-religious. What I am anti is people imposing their religious beliefs on a judicial system which they believe should be based off their religion's teachings. And you keep saying force integration that's not what it is man. You literally said because they have different culture they should have a different term for it. THAT is what opens a pandora's box. "You're black so you're not married you're 'Hugged by shackles'! We replaced marriage with that because you're culturally different than us!" It's a slippery slope. You're all American citizens, you all deserve the same equality. Segregation is what fuels hate. Also, the government has been involved with marriage ever since your country was created. So get over it. Nothing is set in stone.

@PoorCollegeStudent Interracial marriage is still marriage. The purpose doesn't change when people of different races get married.by the way I'm a Canadian and seing what happened here is why I hoped it wouldn't in the US.

There have been cases in Canada in which gays sued those who didn't want to cater to their feelings.

Your stance on homosexuality is your own and no one elses. Using the government as a weapon to further an agenda that only affects an incredibly small minority is madness.

Legal involvement if it must exist can protect gays.

Gays demanding to use a tradition that is exclusive to straight couples only shows their animosity towards heteronormative society and an intense hatred towards religious people who find such actions deeply offensive.

You don't put bacon in a mosque just to fuck with Muslims so don't redefine a term that is exclusive to heterosexuals simply because "it's current year".

Sigh.. this will be the last time replying because you're missing the point. 1) You said because they had a different culture, it should be named differently, to which I brought up black people having different cultures to which you negated and replied with interracial marriage, instead of mentioning the difference in culture not resulting in their own 'cultural' term for marriage but whatever. 2) The gays that sue rarely ever win unless the people they sue are blatantly going against the law. No one is hurt by that. It's like saying Muslims are trying to get Sharia law when you maybe one or two random guys trying. 3) You're missing the whole point of the ruling. The whole point of the ruling was that it should never have been exclusively for man and wife, which is why they changed it. Just because Grandma Jones got used to it doesn't mean shit, which is what your whole argument is based on. 4) Once again, they're demanding equality. It's really simple. Segregation creates hate.

5) An incredibly small minority.. my god man. 8 million people is not an incredibly small minority and that's not even including people who haven't come out because they are too scared of people of traditional values judging and not accepting them, and you could EASILY argue that there are way more people who are for calling it marriage in the country than there are people wanting a different term for it to separate them from the gays. Good day.

definitely. only in same sex marriage is it equal. if it's a man and a woman, the woman has all the advantages, especially in divorce-so those marriages are idiotic. Thus woman married to woman is fair, and man married to man is fair. Only type of marriage I'd logically support.

I do support development of homosexual tendencies (or any other unnatural tendencies that destroys traditional values) abroad, specifically in countries that I consider either competitors or outright enemies. Long-terms results of that are very likely to be catastrophic and that would benefit us greatly in the future.

@progboy oh, there are tons, but due to character limit (and my overall laziness) I'm just gonna highlight a few.1.) Very likely to have severe drop in natural reproduction, which will inevitably lead to increase arrival of ethnicities that are mainly know for breeding, but fail at integrating, which will result in pretty much what's happening right now in EU.2.) Overall drop in "manliness" across boys, which will have extremely negative results on military.3.) Due to lack of proper role models by having parents of both sexes, healthy (i. e. straight) kids from homo families will be significantly less likely to build a proper family in the future, which may easily lead to different disorders, one of them being going out on a killing spree.

1) It would not necessarily lead to a drop in natural reproduction. Same sex marriage wouldn't lead to the presence of more gay people. It just means they can be more open. Gay couples are unable to reproduce without outside help whether or not they are legally married so allowing them to marry has no effect on the fertility of a nation. EU fertility has been affected by factors other than homosexuality such as the ageing population and the increase in women pursuing careers2) Just because gay people are allowed to marry it doesn't necessarily follow that men will start mincing around like John Inman. This point seems to have very little merit3) I'd be interested to see your evidence for this assertion. The very conservative US has lots of killing sprees carried out by people from conventional backgrounds. More gay-friendly places like Scandinavia have relatively few.

If anything I'd say that supporting gay marriage would make a country stronger. If people are allowed to be with who they want they will feel more included and the country will feel more united as a result. Stopping people from being with the people they love will cause resentment against the state and will lead to disloyalty and a preference for more enlightened states.

@progboy1.) You're correct; they'd be more open and hence more influential over the people around them in more way than just one and definitely not in a positive ones neither.2.) There are some theories that support my words (or actually my words revolve around those theories), but due to "freedom of speech" abroad, they're mainly available in Russian language. I doubt you'd be able to read them.3.) There was a research done by some American (!) man on this topic, however, as soon as he posted it, he received a huge backlash from left-wing (homos, feminists, other trash) and it was discarded. Can't remember his name though.

Anyway, I don't really want to change someone's mind on this topic. There are folks reading it; if they will change their opinion, who's going to weaken their countries for us then?

1) Are you seriously suggesting that gay people can persuade straight people to "convert" to being gay?2) Theories are all very well in theory. Are these theories supported by any evidence or peer-reviewed research or are they just the ill-informed ranting of some Russian homophobes? I'm guessing it's the latter. This would explain why these theories haven't made it to the English-speaking world. Maybe these theories are too ludicrous for even the looniest American gay-haters to endorse.3) Again I would question the validity of this "research". Is it supported by facts or is it just ill-informed ranting? Do you know of any children of gay parents who have gone on killing sprees? If so is this more prevalent amongst children of gay parents than of straight parents?

I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just questioning the facts behind your theories. It seems to me that there is little to back them up.

@progboy1.) Yes. One of (but not limited to) the proofs are women in prison. Due to inability to have relations with another sex or build a family, they turn to lesbian relations within the prison to the point they would commit a crime just to come back to her same-sex lover in prison. There was a documentary on this phenomenon in our prisons.Another method is just outright brainwashing kids in, say, schools (hence why we have law against propaganda of homosexuality towards children). Kids are vulnerable to influence, hence it's quite possible to make them homosexuals using specific methods. Ever wondered why they can't vote or why parents brainwash their children into religious beliefs at very young age?2.) Could be; could also be a result of political-correctness in western countries, hence they're never given the green light, plus general lack of knowledge of Russian language in those countries.

3.) Regnerus research, remembered his name. Liberals really outdid themselves in order to slander his research.

The main point is: I don't see anything wrong with other countries running experiments on their own children and people, but I don't think going "with the flow" or charging ahead of everyone is a good idea.If they will backfire terribly (which is what I do see as the most likely outcome), that's great for us.If they won't, but also won't change anything, I don't see the point in adapting something that's useless & meaningless anyway.If it will make their society better (which I highly doubt), well, we learn quickly.

book of Enoch chapter 6And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them and said to one another Come let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children

@GoldMeddle i can prove that he dosnt existthink just the number quintillion and put planets in the side.3000 gods that dont make any sense to you but yours make *facepalm*''God is a theory to describe neuter where we came from and physical phenomena''

I really don't care. If people want to be together in a relationship regardless of what their gender are then so be it. If there is same sex marriage then there will also be same sex divorces also. If you are someone that is serious about your religion and religious beliefs about this being wrong, etc. then that's a whole other story. Keep in mind not everyone follows your religion or the deity you worship and everyone has different perceptions and views of everything and everyone in this world.

Besides, marriage and weddings are an industry. It's always about business and generating more money in the end anyway. More money, more bills to pay, more wedding cakes ordered, more taxes to be paid to the government.

By not restricting marriage to non-same sex couples they had only increasing variety for supply and demand of everything relevant to the marriage and wedding industry.

So for those that run businesses relevant to those industries, by allowing gay marriage would actually increased a supply and demand and possibilities of having even more customers than they normally would have had when there had been restrictions in place which would be beneficial to the business owners and as well as their employees part of that industry.

It also helps the government because if they are in debt right now, they are desperate and will do whatever they can to keep generating more income and revenue from taxpayers and businesses.

0

0|0

0|0

Anonymous

2mo

I think people are marriage means anything unless its between a man and woman. If you're gay you're just screwing around.

0

0|0

0|0

Anonymous

2mo

I dont care for marriage so go for it m marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion any more its goverment stuff.

I Dont however support. Gay people being together i dont think its natural and just wrong. I dont belive in any god or any deity.

It weirds me out as a man. Why a man. Would like another man becuase i dont. And would never think to.

All the gays and transexual i met have messed backgrounds or a event in there life that changes them.

I dont hate them. Like im not gonna punch. Them or anything. I just dont like thier choices

@Dave20154 not homophobic im. Homo-intolerant. there's a difference. I dont fear gays im disgusted by it to be honest but. I deal with that becuase they are still people. I just can't be frienda with them or have it in my close inner family

What Girls Said 22

Yes. I've yet to hear anyone who disagrees with it give an objective, calm, reasonable explanation for their position. There is no "gay agenda." No one is trying to convert you. Your same-sex gay friends aren't praying on you (unless they're an awful person, which they'd be regardless of sexuality.)

of course the confederate flag has everything to do with it. it is represented by the KKK. a hate group that basically hates everything that's "not them". face it, you are a racist, bigot, who supports a pig

@PoorCollegeStudent oh I forgot the q and because I just don't think its right and if they adopt children the child will have no mom or no dad or two moms and two dad's eoyher way I think it's disgusting and not normal gnight

Okay well whether or not you agree with them adopting that doesn't seem to be a reason to hate them? I mean they aren't doing anything that impacts you right? So do you just not agree with them adopting instead of hating them? Also, would you rather those children go to a loving couple of 2 males or 2 females instead of living in and out of foster homes or orphanages? I think for me the obvious choice is as long as they're financially stable, allow them to adopt because they'll go to a loving family.

@FemaleTrumpSupporter So you'd rather them suffer and not be loved than be loved by homosexuals? Why should the parents' sexual orientation result in them not being able to raise a child? If someone finds the same sex attractive it doesn't matter who raises them they just find the same sex attractive. Having homosexual parents doesn't make their kids any more gay the same way having religious parents doesn't make their kids any more straight. Homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time, it's perfectly fine to be gay. Alexander the Great, one of the best conquerors in the history of the world fucked both guys and girls. These people have done nothing wrong, and are offering their homes just for the chance to love a child as their own but you don't think they should be allowed because of your personal opinion of homosexuality being wrong. Don't you find that fucked up? There are millions of kids out there who would love the opportunity to have parents regardless of their gender

I guess it's because you grew up in a dominantly white religious state where I grew up in an extremely multicultural country. All I hope is that you keep an open mind to it as it is here to stay and being so negative and against it won't do anything but bring hate to other people and to yourself. You're young so travel a lot and get a taste of the world, then make your decision.

No I don't think you're racist or homophobic I just thing you haven't experienced enough yet. I went to wisconsin for a year and there were so many people who said they hate gays and they hate Muslims so I asked them if they had met any gays or Muslims and they all said no they haven't. Unfortunately a lot of people just see what's on the media and make their opinion on a group of people based on what they see instead of based on their personal experiences. That's why I hope you travel because I think if you meet a lot of them you'll understand that for the most part they're really nice people.

@Dave20154 could you honestly just shut up? I have full rights not to believe in gay marriage. I'm not afraid of them I just don't think it should exist. I think they should have civil unions but not marriage. Go suck Hillarys dick you liberal fag.

Lol Guys, relax. Reproducing is meant for a man and woman yes, that's how we made babies. Now a days there are ways around it. I'm not so sure marriage is meant for a man and a woman just because they have different parts. Marriage now - a - days is more about loving each other than reproducing, creating an heir if you will.

Marriage, which is the legal recognition of a union of two people, was created for a male and female in the US sure. Can't disagree with that. However, voting was also created just for men in the US. Both are approved by the government; both are subject to change. Just because it was originally created a certain way doesn't make it right.